See Juniel v. Saul, No. 1:20-CV-0421 JLT, 2021 WL 2349878, at *10 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2021) (in applying specific and legitimate standard under previous regulations, finding “only the statements from Dr. Bedi that Plaintiff was ‘very limited in his ability to perform an occupation due to these disorders' and his ‘debilitation [was] permanent' may be rejected as ultimate conclusions reserved for the Commissioner” (quoting Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (“To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated.”) (emphasis in original)))
Importantly, an ALJ may not reject work-related limitations simply on the grounds that a source also addressed the ultimate issue. As this Court previously explained, “To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated.” Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the ALJ erred in rejecting the functional limitations identified by Ms. Sosa on these grounds.
As this Court previously explained, “To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated.” Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). c. Treatment relationship
It is therefore not accorded the weight of a medical opinion"). "To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated." Neves v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-cv-01194-EPG, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, an ALJ may discredit treating physicians' opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings. Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004).
As this Court previously explained, "To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated." Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). c. Treatment relationship
This is not a specific, legitimate reason for rejecting the limitations identified by Dr. WebbKummer. As this Court previously explained, "Tobe very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated." Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original) Significantly, Dr. WebbKummer indicated Plaintiff walked with an "antalgic gait / unstable gait," and could stand and/or walk for only 5 minutes at one time and 30 minutes total in an eight-hour day. (Doc. 12-25 at 25) Thus, she believed that—contrary to the ALJ's findings—Plaintiff was not able to perform the exertional requirements of light work, which generally "requires a good deal of standing or walking."